BY T. VALENTINER.
Especially unpleasant to the advocates of Sunday sacredness, must be the testimony of prominent historians which completely disproves their claims, and they would doubtless be glad to have that testimony suppressed. Accordingly, we find that in one instance, at least, a bare-faced attempt of this kind has been made.
A comparison of the first edition of Neander’s Church History (the great German church historian) with later editions, shows that expressions setting forth Sunday in its true light, have been left out, and others fraudulently substituted, which suit the first-day advocates much better, being made to read more in harmony with prevailing views. We find, for instance, in Vol. I., part II., p. 339, of the first edition, printed in 1828, in Hamburg, Germany, the following:—
Die Feier des Sonntags war immer nur, wie alle Festfeier, menschliche Anordnung, fern war es von den Aposteln, ein göttliches Gebot, in dieser Hinsicht, festzustellen, fern von ihnen und von der ersten apostolischen Kirche, die Sabbathgesetze auf den Sonntag zu uebertragen. Veilleicht aber schon am Ende des zweiten Jahrhunderts hatte sich eine falsehe Uebertragung dieser Art gebildet, dem schon scheint man das Arbeiten am Sonntag als Sünde betrachtet haben.
Translated into English, it reads:—
The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance; it was far from the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the Sabbath laws to Sunday. But perhaps at the end of the second century a false transference of this kind had begun to take place; for laboring on Sunday seems then to have been considered sin.
Here he says, in clear and definite words,—and other historians also affirm it,—that it was far from the intention of the apostles and the early church to transfer the Sabbath law to Sunday. Just the contrary is asserted by the defenders of Sunday,—and what is done? Why, this passage is deliberately left out in later editions. Thus we find in the fourth edition, Vol. I., p. 378, instead of the foregoing, the following substitute:—
Wie wir aber bei Tertullian schon eine Vermischung des Jüdischen und des christlichen Gesichtspunktes von den Festenbemerkten, so zeigt sich uns bei ihm auch schon eine Spur von der Uebertragung des Sabbathgesetzes auf den Sonntag, indem er das Verrichten eines Geschafts am Sonntage als Sünde, betrachtet zu haben scheint.
The English of this is as follows:—
In speaking about Tertullian, we have observed a blending of the Jewish and Christian views concerning the festal days, and there we also discover a trace of a transference of the Sabbath law to Sunday, since he seems to have regarded the performance of work on Sunday as sin.
That sometime a false transference took place is true, as we all know, otherwise Sunday would not be kept by the majority of Christians. But that is not the question. The question is whether Christ or the apostles instituted the keeping of Sunday, which they did not.
Then, again, in the first edition, on p. 339, Vol. I., part II., we find the following foot-note about Acts 20:7, which is left out in the later edition :—
Durchaus beweisend ist die Stelle nicht, denn die bevorstehende Abreise des Apostels Paulus konnte die kleine Gemeinde zu einem brüderlichen Abschiedsmahl vereinigen, bei welcher Gelegenheit der scheidende Apostel seinen letzten Vortrag hielt, wenn auch noch keine besondere Sonntagsfeier statt fand noch weniger kann, in dieser Hinsicht, aus 1 Korinth. 16:2, bewiesen werden; alles würde sick hier hinlänglich erklären, wenn man auch nur an einen im bürgerlichen Leben gewöhnlichen Wochenanfang dächte,”
Translated into English, it reads as follows :—
This passage is not a positive proof, for, on account of the near departure of the apostle Paul, the little church might have assembled to partake of a brotherly farewell supper, on which occasion the apostle delivered his last discourse, although no particular celebration of Sunday took place at that time. Much less can it be proved, in this respect, from 1 Cor. 16:2; all can be satisfactorily explained, if we only view it as the beginning of a common civil week.
As already stated, this note is left out in the fourth edition, printed in 1863, and perhaps in others also. Why? Is it because these passages are now especially used as proof (?) in favor of the keeping of Sunday ? What a puerile attempt ! These words of Neander cannot be destroyed. They live, though he has been dead for thirty years; and they will be a living testimony, though even more changes should be made. These words of Neander, and the sources from which he derived his information, remain, and many other testimonies besides. But, above all, does the Bible, the Book of all books, remain, which is able to show us the way of salvation. Its testimony remains,—”these sayings are faithful and true.” To all these efforts the words of Jesus to Paul may be applied: “It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks” (Acts 9: 5); and also the consolation of the Saviour as found in Matt. 24:35: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald Feb. 12, 1889